STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (NIG) LTD v. OLADUNNI & ANOR
(2020)LCN/15553(CA)
In The Court of Appeal
(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Friday, October 16, 2020
CA/L/341/2017
Before Our Lordships:
Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh Justice of the Court of Appeal
Balkisu Bello Aliyu Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ebiowei Tobi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIG. LTD. APPELANT(S)
And
1. OTUNBA (DR.) SOLOMON A. OLADUNNI 2. ZMODEM SOLUTIONS LTD. RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
WHAT IS GARNISHEE PROCEEDING?
Lord Denning MR aptly explained garnishee proceedings in the English Court of Appeal case of Choice Investments Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd., garnishee) (1981) 1 All ER 225 at 226 – 227 thus –
“The word ‘garnishee’ is derived from the Norman-French. It denotes one who is required to ‘garnish’, that is, to furnish, a creditor with the money to pay off a debt ….. JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
MEANING, TYPE, PRINCPLE AND PROCEDURE IN GARNISHEE PROCEEDING
Lord Denning MR aptly explained garnishee proceedings in the English Court of Appeal case of Choice Investments Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd., garnishee) (1981) 1 All ER 225 at 226 – 227 thus –
“The word ‘garnishee’ is derived from the Norman-French. It denotes one who is required to ‘garnish’, that is, to furnish, a creditor with the money to pay off a debt …..
There are two steps in the process. The first is a garnishee order nisi. Nisi is Norman- French. It means ‘unless’. It is an order on the bank to pay the (judgment debt) to the judgment creditor or into Court within a stated time unless there is some sufficient reason why the bank should not do so. Such reason may exist if the bank disputes its indebtedness to the customer for one reason or other. Or if payment to this creditor might be unfair by preferring him to other creditors: see Pritchard v Westminster Bank Ltd [1969] 1 All ER 999, [1969] 1 WLR 547 and Rainbow v Moorgate Properties Ltd [1975] 2 All ER 821, [1975) 1 WLR 788. If no sufficient reason appears, the garnishee order is made absolute, to pay to the judgment creditor, or into Court whichever is the more appropriate. On making the payment, the bank gets a good discharge from its indebtedness to its own customer, just as if he himself directed the bank to pay it……
As soon as the garnishee order nisi is served on the bank, it operates as an injunction. It prevents the bank from paying the money to its customer until the garnishee order is made absolute, or is discharged, as the case may be. It binds the debt in the hands of the garnishee, that is, creates a charge in favour of the judgment creditor: see Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corpn [1921] 3 KB 110 at 131, [1921] All ER Rep 92 at 102, per Atkin L J. The money at the bank is then said to be ‘attached’, again derived from Norman-French. But the ‘attachment’ is not an order to pay. It only freezes the sum in the hands of the bank until the order is made absolute or is discharged. It is only when the order is made absolute that the bank is liable to pay.”
See also the Supreme Court case ofUnion Bank v. Boney Marcus & 2 Ors. (2012) 1 BFLR 635 which relied on the English Court of Appeal case of Choice Investment Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (supra), per Akintan, J.S.C. (as His Lordship was). JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
PRINCIPLE GOVERNING GARNISHEE PROCEEDING AND THE DUTY OF A GARNISHEE
A garnishee proceeding is therefore sui generis and is strictly between the judgment creditor and the garnishee who is indebted to the judgment debtor; it is on that account a separate and distinct action between the judgment creditor and the person or body holding in custody the assets of the judgment debtor.
Although garnishee proceedings is an offshoot of the judgment that pronounced the debt owing, the role of a garnishee is, however, to conscientiously and truthfully disclose the judgment debtor’s state of account in the custody of the garnishee and satisfy the Court why the funds in possession of the garnishee belonging to the judgment debtor should not be garnished to pay the judgment debt.
Consequently, it is not the garnishee’s business to play the role of and/or to shield and protect the money of the judgment debtor by latching onto the money or asset of the judgment debtor in the custody of the garnishee that does not belong to the garnishee and/or of which the garnishee has no lien over vide C.B.N. v. Interstella Communications Ltd. (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 1618) 204 following the cases of UBA Plc. v. Ekanem (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1190) 207, Oceanic Bank Plc. v. Oladepo (2012) LPELR — 19670; see also Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. v. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd. (2005) 13 NWLR (pt. 943) 654, GTB Plc. v. Innoson (Nig.) Ltd. (2017) 16 NWLR (pt. 1591) 181. JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS
The rationale for garnishee proceedings was stated by Sir Charles Hall, Vice Chancellor. in the Old English case ofIn Re Cowans Estate — Rapier v. Wright (1880) 14 Ch. Div 638 to the effect that the good sense of it is that such money ought to be of the creditor and that the remedy by attachment ought to receive a favourable construction by enabling the judgment creditor resort to such money. See also Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation (1921) L. R. 3 K.B.D. 110. JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT?
‘Suspense account’ is an English phrase. One does not need a witness to orally explain the said English phrase. The Court is also entitled to look up the definition of the phrase ‘suspense account’ in an English Dictionary vide the case of Benjamin v. State (2019) 15 NWLR (pt. 1696) 541 where the Supreme Court held inter alia that a Judge can use any book, authority or any writing relevant to the case to arrive at justice in the case. The fact that one of the parties was in doubt about its definition could therefore, be cleared by looking up the phrase in an English Dictionary. Its definition may be found in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) page 1264, for example, where it is defined as an account in which charges or credits are entered temporarily pending determination of their proper place.
There is, in addition, the apt proposition made by Mr. S.A. Talabi in his useful book — Practice of Banking in Nigeria (2009 Edition) at page 142 – to the effect that a suspense account is any money of the judgment debtor put in a suspense account pending its transfer to a beneficiary or awaiting some conditions precedent to its movement to the beneficiary as lawful money of the judgment debtor and; that, a garnishee order against the judgment debtor before the money is effectively transferred to the beneficiary will accordingly, attach such fund in the suspense account relying on the case of Ayuba v. Ogunleye and Sangoranti (Trading as Egbado Co.) v. Bank of America Incorporated (1970) (omitting the full citation). A suspense account is thus an interim or transit or transitional account operated by a customer with his bank. It does not therefore, require oral evidence, nor does it call for an issue of fair hearing to determine the meaning of a ‘suspense account’ as erroneously contended by the appellant. JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
DUTY OF COURT TOWARDS CONFLICT IN AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE
It is trite that authentic documentary evidence in support of one of the affidavits can be used to resolve conflict in affidavit evidence where such conflict exists on fundamental facts vide National Hospital Abuja and Ors. v. National Commission For Colleges of Education and Ors. (2014) 11 NWLR (pt. 1418) 309, Ezegbu v. F.A.T.B. Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (pt. 220) 699, Chairman, N.P.C. v. Chairman, Ikere Local Government (2001) FWLR (pt. 70) 1466, Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (pt. 1433) 394 at 417, Onwubuya and Ors. v. Ikegbunam (2019) 16 NWLR (pt. 1697) 94 at 113.
In addition, it is only in cases where affidavits are irreconcilably in conflict on crucial, significant or material facts that the Court shall for the purpose of resolving the conflict arising from the affidavit evidence ask the parties to proffer oral evidence as to such facts, and shall hear any such oral evidence of the deponent of the affidavits and such other witnesses as may be called by the parties vide Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (Evidence Act) read with the case of Onwubuya and Ors. v. Ikegbunam (supra) at 114 following Union Bank of Nigeria v. Awmar Properties Ltd. (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1626) 64 and the cases (supra) cited by the respondent. JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is from a decision of the High Court of Justice of Lagos State (the Court below) by which it made a garnishee order nisi absolute against the appellant and ordered the appellant to pay the judgment debt or sum of N13,300,800 out of account No. 9363040382 to the 1st respondent.
Put shortly, the 1st respondent had instituted a suit against the 2nd respondent claiming the sum of N13,300,800 being the principal sum of N8, 160,000 with interest of for the first loan and N1,360,800 for the second loan on the agreed interest of 21% per annum from June, 2011, and with 21% interest rate per annum on the principal sum of N8,160,000.00 from the date of commencement of the suit and N5 million cost of the action.
The 2nd respondent, as defendant, failed to enter appearance nor filed defence to the action, and upon application on notice by the 1st respondent, judgment in default of appearance and defence was entered for the 1st respondent against the 2nd respondent on 24/03/2015 vide pages 39 — 42 of the record of appeal (the record) where the Court below stated the judgment sum to be N13,300,800 being the principal sum of N8,160,000 plus accrued interest of N3,780,000 for the first loan and N1,360,800 for the second loan on the agreed interest rate of 21% per annum from June, 2011, as well as 10% interest rate per annum on the entire sum from judgment until the judgment debt is liquidated and N50,000 costs against the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent thereafter commenced garnishee proceedings against the appellant as the 14th garnishee. The appellant as the 14th garnishee filed affidavit to show cause vide pages 142 — 144 of the record to the effect that the 2nd respondent’s accounts had debit balance and that the 2nd respondent was indebted to the appellant in the sum of vide the appellant’s further and better affidavit dated 15/12/2016.
And, that despite the affidavit to show cause (supra), the Court below made the garnishee order absolute against the appellant and ordered the appellant to pay the judgment sum of N13,300,800 out of the suspense account No. 9363040382.
The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the Court below and filed a notice of appeal with one ground contained in pages 241 — 243 of the record and a brief of argument dated 05/10/2017, and filed on 11/10/17, but deemed as properly filed on 06/03/19, with the following solitary issue for determination-
“Whether the learned trial Court was right to have made the order nisi absolute against the appellant in the light of the depositions in the appellant’s affidavit and further affidavits to show cause and the attached exhibits in view of the provisions of the law.”
The appellant contended that a garnishee proceeding which has been made absolute by order of the Court for satisfaction of judgment debt can only be set aside on appeal vide Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. v. Boney Marcus Industries Ltd. (2005) 13 NWLR (pt. 943) 654.
The appellant contended thenceforward that since the affidavit evidence to set aside the garnishee order absolute was based on conflicting and confusing affidavit evidence, the Court below should have called for oral evidence to resolve the conflict, not to have entered judgment on the potentially contentious affidavit evidence disputing liability vide the cases of STB Ltd. v. Contract Resources (Nig.) Ltd. (2001) 6 NWLR (pt. 708) 115, Nigeria Hotels Ltd. v. Nzekwe (1990) 5 NWLR (pt. 149) 187 and Section 87 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (Volume 13) CAP 56 Laws of the Federation, 2004.
The appellant further contended that by the showing of the 1st respondent’s response to its affidavit to show cause on the confusion on the meaning of “interest in suspense account” as appeared on the statement of account attached to the affidavit to show cause to which the Court below agreed, the Court below ought to have called for oral evidence to determine the issue.
It was then argued in the alternative that the Court below should have referred same to a referee who understands the accounting terminology rather than proceed to make the order absolute on the position of counsel’s misunderstanding/misrepresentation; more so, ‘suspense account’ as a terminology which is defined in Wikipedia as an account used temporarily to carry doubtful receipts and disbursements or discrepancies pending their analysis and permanent classification could not have accommodated the garnishee order absolute.
The appellant also contended that by the said definition in Wikipedia, a ‘suspense account’ can be a repository for monetary transactions like cash receipts, cash disbursements and journal entries entered with valid account numbers and that interest in suspense on its own is a particular kind of asset that may appear on a company’s balance sheet as nonperforming asset showing the N60 million and the N18 million, respectively, which appeared in credit in the appellant’s balance sheet was nonperforming and thus not in credit to sustain the garnishee order absolute; more so, the appellant stated that the 2nd respondent is indebted to it in the sum of N552,314,137.55 vide page 190 of the record, as well as pages 191 — 216 thereof reflecting that the 2nd respondent had not paid monies into the account all through.
The appellant further contended that the 1st respondent having admitted through his counsel that he did not know the terminology ‘interest suspense’, the Court below should have given the appellant the right of fair hearing to explain its meaning especially as the evidence placed before the Court below was conflicting on material facts which should have been resolved by oral evidence vide Befaren Pharm. Ltd. v. A.I.B. Ltd. (2005) 17 NWLR (pt. 954) 230, Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 550.
It was finally contended by the appellant that the account statement attached to the further and better affidavit contained in pages 191 — 216 of the record showed there was no live transaction on the 2nd respondent’s account from 14.09.2016 to 14/12/2016 as credit entry except the interest receivable which on its own cannot be funds standing to the credit of the judgment debtor; consequently, the appellant advocated that the interest of justice would not be served if the appeal is not allowed as the appellant whom the 2nd respondent is indebted to in the sum of N552,314,137.55 with interest still running would be made to incur additional loss by using other depositor’s funds to repay the judgment debtor’s debt; upon which the appellant urged that the appeal should be allowed and the garnishee order absolute set aside and the appellant be discharged from the garnishee proceedings.
Only the 1st respondent filed brief of argument. The 1st respondent’s brief was dated on 12/02/18, but it was deemed as properly filed on 15/04/18, in which it was contended that the Court below was right to have made the garnishee order nisi absolute against the appellant since the judgment debtor’s account details attached as evidence by the appellant showed a credit balance enough to offset the judgment debt as shown by the documentary evidence which resolved the alleged conflict in the affidavit evidence vide the cases of Azubuike v. Diamond Bank Plc. (2014) 3 NWLR (pt. 1393) 116 at 127 and 135, C.B.N. v. Auto Import Export (2013) 2 NWLR (pt. 1337) 80 at 127, National Hospital, Abuja v. National Commission For Colleges of Education (2014) 11 NWLR (pt. 1418) 309 at 330, Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (pt. 1433) 394 at 417; and that the Court below properly exercised its discretion on the materials placed before it vide Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Limited v. Desire Gallery Limited and Anor. (2004) 13 NWLR (pt. 891) 522 at 541; consequently, the 1st respondent urged that the appeal should be dismissed.
There was a motion filed on 04/04/17 for a stay of execution of the garnishee order absolute and for an injunction pending the hearing of the appeal and; with the hearing of the appeal on 21/09/20, the said motion is consequently spent or overtaken by events and is hereby struck out.
Lord Denning MR aptly explained garnishee proceedings in the English Court of Appeal case of Choice Investments Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd., garnishee) (1981) 1 All ER 225 at 226 – 227 thus –
“The word ‘garnishee’ is derived from the Norman-French. It denotes one who is required to ‘garnish’, that is, to furnish, a creditor with the money to pay off a debt …..
There are two steps in the process. The first is a garnishee order nisi. Nisi is Norman- French. It means ‘unless’. It is an order on the bank to pay the (judgment debt) to the judgment creditor or into Court within a stated time unless there is some sufficient reason why the bank should not do so. Such reason may exist if the bank disputes its indebtedness to the customer for one reason or other. Or if payment to this creditor might be unfair by preferring him to other creditors: see Pritchard v Westminster Bank Ltd [1969] 1 All ER 999, [1969] 1 WLR 547 and Rainbow v Moorgate Properties Ltd [1975] 2 All ER 821, [1975) 1 WLR 788. If no sufficient reason appears, the garnishee order is made absolute, to pay to the judgment creditor, or into Court whichever is the more appropriate. On making the payment, the bank gets a good discharge from its indebtedness to its own customer, just as if he himself directed the bank to pay it……
As soon as the garnishee order nisi is served on the bank, it operates as an injunction. It prevents the bank from paying the money to its customer until the garnishee order is made absolute, or is discharged, as the case may be. It binds the debt in the hands of the garnishee, that is, creates a charge in favour of the judgment creditor: see Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corpn [1921] 3 KB 110 at 131, [1921] All ER Rep 92 at 102, per Atkin L J. The money at the bank is then said to be ‘attached’, again derived from Norman-French. But the ‘attachment’ is not an order to pay. It only freezes the sum in the hands of the bank until the order is made absolute or is discharged. It is only when the order is made absolute that the bank is liable to pay.”
See also the Supreme Court case ofUnion Bank v. Boney Marcus & 2 Ors. (2012) 1 BFLR 635 which relied on the English Court of Appeal case of Choice Investment Ltd. v. Jeromnimon (supra), per Akintan, J.S.C. (as His Lordship was).
A garnishee proceeding is therefore sui generis and is strictly between the judgment creditor and the garnishee who is indebted to the judgment debtor; it is on that account a separate and distinct action between the judgment creditor and the person or body holding in custody the assets of the judgment debtor.
Although garnishee proceedings is an offshoot of the judgment that pronounced the debt owing, the role of a garnishee is, however, to conscientiously and truthfully disclose the judgment debtor’s state of account in the custody of the garnishee and satisfy the Court why the funds in possession of the garnishee belonging to the judgment debtor should not be garnished to pay the judgment debt.
Consequently, it is not the garnishee’s business to play the role of and/or to shield and protect the money of the judgment debtor by latching onto the money or asset of the judgment debtor in the custody of the garnishee that does not belong to the garnishee and/or of which the garnishee has no lien over vide C.B.N. v. Interstella Communications Ltd. (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 1618) 204 following the cases of UBA Plc. v. Ekanem (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1190) 207, Oceanic Bank Plc. v. Oladepo (2012) LPELR — 19670; see also Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. v. Boney Marcus Ind. Ltd. (2005) 13 NWLR (pt. 943) 654, GTB Plc. v. Innoson (Nig.) Ltd. (2017) 16 NWLR (pt. 1591) 181.
The amount of the judgment debtor’s credit in the 2nd respondent’s bank account with the appellant was accordingly, property of the judgment consisting of a debt, the appellant being the person in debt, and the credit balance therefore properly garnished; because the credit balance consisted a debt payable by the appellant to the 2nd respondent on demand by it and as such service of the attachment or garnishee order on the appellant was a validly sufficient demand to garnish the credit balance in the account vide Flione v. Oladipo In Re Barclays Bank Garnishees (1934) 11 NLR 168.
The rationale for garnishee proceedings was stated by Sir Charles Hall, Vice Chancellor. in the Old English case ofIn Re Cowans Estate — Rapier v. Wright (1880) 14 Ch. Div 638 to the effect that the good sense of it is that such money ought to be of the creditor and that the remedy by attachment ought to receive a favourable construction by enabling the judgment creditor resort to such money. See also Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation (1921) L. R. 3 K.B.D. 110.
‘Suspense account’ is an English phrase. One does not need a witness to orally explain the said English phrase. The Court is also entitled to look up the definition of the phrase ‘suspense account’ in an English Dictionary vide the case ofBenjamin v. State (2019) 15 NWLR (pt. 1696) 541 where the Supreme Court held inter alia that a Judge can use any book, authority or any writing relevant to the case to arrive at justice in the case. The fact that one of the parties was in doubt about its definition could therefore, be cleared by looking up the phrase in an English Dictionary. Its definition may be found in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) page 1264, for example, where it is defined as an account in which charges or credits are entered temporarily pending determination of their proper place.
There is, in addition, the apt proposition made by Mr. S.A. Talabi in his useful book — Practice of Banking in Nigeria (2009 Edition) at page 142 – to the effect that a suspense account is any money of the judgment debtor put in a suspense account pending its transfer to a beneficiary or awaiting some conditions precedent to its movement to the beneficiary as lawful money of the judgment debtor and; that, a garnishee order against the judgment debtor before the money is effectively transferred to the beneficiary will accordingly, attach such fund in the suspense account relying on the case of Ayuba v. Ogunleye and Sangoranti (Trading as Egbado Co.) v. Bank of America Incorporated (1970) (omitting the full citation). A suspense account is thus an interim or transit or transitional account operated by a customer with his bank. It does not therefore, require oral evidence, nor does it call for an issue of fair hearing to determine the meaning of a ‘suspense account’ as erroneously contended by the appellant.
It is trite that authentic documentary evidence in support of one of the affidavits can be used to resolve conflict in affidavit evidence where such conflict exists on fundamental facts vide National Hospital Abuja and Ors. v. National Commission For Colleges of Education and Ors. (2014) 11 NWLR (pt. 1418) 309, Ezegbu v. F.A.T.B. Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (pt. 220) 699, Chairman, N.P.C. v. Chairman, Ikere Local Government (2001) FWLR (pt. 70) 1466, Gbileve v. Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (pt. 1433) 394 at 417, Onwubuya and Ors. v. Ikegbunam (2019) 16 NWLR (pt. 1697) 94 at 113.
In addition, it is only in cases where affidavits are irreconcilably in conflict on crucial, significant or material facts that the Court shall for the purpose of resolving the conflict arising from the affidavit evidence ask the parties to proffer oral evidence as to such facts, and shall hear any such oral evidence of the deponent of the affidavits and such other witnesses as may be called by the parties vide Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (Evidence Act) read with the case of Onwubuya and Ors. v. Ikegbunam (supra) at 114 following Union Bank of Nigeria v. Awmar Properties Ltd. (2018) 10 NWLR (pt. 1626) 64 and the cases (supra) cited by the respondent.
The material facts which were not in dispute are that at all material times the judgment debtor, 2nd respondent, operated the suspense account with the appellant that was garnished. The bank statement of the suspense account was also in credit to satisfy the judgment debt; whilst the alleged lien the appellant had over the suspense account of the 2nd respondent was not convincingly made out. It was also not in dispute that the exact sum of the judgment debt had been ascertained and awarded to the 1st respondent qua judgment creditor against the 2nd respondent qua judgment debtor by the Court below.
The letter addressed to the Registrar of the Court below which is contained in page 190 of the record is not concrete evidence of the alleged indebtedness of N552,314, 137.55 of the 2nd respondent to the appellant as it did not carry the ingredients of how and when the alleged indebtedness of the 2nd respondent arose, nor would the statement of account alone establish the alleged indebtedness vide Section 51 of the Evidence Act.
Perhaps an affidavit by or from the 2nd respondent and/or documents admitting the indebtedness of N552,314, 137.55 by the 2nd respondent should have accompanied the appellant’s affidavit to show cause demonstrating the acceptance of the alleged indebtedness by the 2nd respondent and the circumstances under which the 2nd respondent became allegedly indebted to the appellant for the whopping sum of N552,314,137.55 to successfully raise a shield of lien in favour of the appellant which would have had priority over the judgment debt. The allegation of the indebtedness in question is, with respect to the materials contained in pages 142 — 144 and 188 — 218 of the record, thin, lean and tenuous to ground the heavy and weighty allegation of the indebtedness of the 2nd respondent to the appellant for the said large sum of money.
As it is, the temptation is to reasonably infer that the said allegation of indebtedness of the 2nd respondent to the appellant was contrived to create protective shelter or cover for the 2nd respondent to enable it gratuitously evade the garnishee proceedings and leave the 1st respondent who is entitled to reap the fruit of the judgment debt with an empty shell of litigation.
The Court below was accordingly, right to hold in page 237 of the record (unedited) that —
“I am in agreement with the observations and learned counsel for the judgment creditor as the sum in the balance column of the statement of account No.9363040382 indicated a credit balance of N18,792,516.18. In the light of this I hereby make the garnishee order nisi absolute against the 14th garnishee bank. Standard Chartered Bank (the appellant).
The garnishee bank is ordered to pay the judgment sum of out of Acct. No: 9363040382 belonging to the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor forthwith.
I endorse the holding (supra) of the Court below.
On the whole, I find no substance in the appeal and hereby dismiss it and affirm the decision of the Court below with N500,000 costs against the appellant in favour of the 1st respondent.
BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh, JCA, and I agree completely with his reasoning and the conclusion reached therein. I adopt same as mine and I too find no merit in this appeal. I too dismiss it. I affirm the judgment of the trial Court.
I abide by the order of cost made in the lead judgment. Appeal dismissed.
EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.: I have been afforded in advance the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment of my learned brother, Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh, JCA, and I am in tandem with his reasoning and the conclusion reached therein. On my part, I have nothing more to add as my learned brother has dealt succinctly with the subject matter which has to do with garnishee proceedings.
Appearances:
U. C. Madubuike Esqr. For Appellant(s)
Mr. P. E. Tagbo for the 1st Respondent.
2nd Respondent was served hearing notice but was unrepresented. For Respondent(s)